The cosmic radiation redshifts detected have been interpreted as the result of expanding universe and many mind-boggling confusions. In fact, redshift of Doppler effect is over 92% dominating in nature, not 50-50 linear assumption.
Additionally, Doppler redshift is independent of the location of it's source. It is function of changing in distance. So is Doppler blueshift (negative redshift). In other words, redshift caused by receding of an object is Doppler effect. It is the effect of changing distance and it is limited by the top speed of the object and observer.
Secondly, redshift is also effect of location due to frequency loss over distance(other than change in distance). It is exponentially proportional to location and can exceed redshift z-value greater than one without limit. However, it is not the light speed receding of Doppler effect. I believe frequency loss over distance has caused the interpretation of Hubble's Law and created the illusion of run-away universe.
Thirdly, energy level change of source also causes stretching or shrinking of frequency.
Neither, can we linearly revert the universe had started from a point mass based on the receding objects. Suppose the Solar System was proven expanding, it is not absolutely linearly related to the origin of the Solar System. Seeing all people leaving the ball park doesn't mean they were all born in the ball park. Besides, how the state of very high density and high temperature begins? Can chasing the beginning of beginning of the universe ever reach the beginning? Isn't it also paradoxical?
The size of the universe is defined by it's boundary, not the separation and congregation of objects. Unless the boundary of the universe can be detected and measured, size or change in size of the universe can not be proven. Furthermore, it is impossible to date the age of the universe, unless we can date the age of fundamental elements. Even if we could date particles, it is impossible to date the space.
Anyway, what if the hypothesized gravitational waves, spacetime curvature, dark matter/energy got in the way. Wouldn't redshift merely a mirage? Isn't it paradoxic entanglement?
I don't think redshift has fooled us. Universe does not lie. However, we can fool ourself with specious interpretations from time to time. The question is, what do we do when mind-boggling statements arise further mind-bending interpretations? Nevertheless, if redshift was not over interpreted, all further controversial interpretations can be avoided. Time and effort of scientists is too valuable isn't it?